Tennessee poised to ban public drag shows, hormone therapy for children

[spuderump]

good.

Children should not be subject to this rubbish.

 

[Xzi]

good.

Children should not be subject to this rubbish.

Law was unconstitutional and repealed as a result, get dunked.

 

[RetroGen]

On writing laws, if you want to write a fair bill, it should apply equally to everyone. If you focus on specific classes of people, you are purposefully designing your laws around the idea that different people should be treated differently. A fair law treats every citizen exactly the same, regardless of any inherent or acquired characteristics.

That implies a naive notion of fairness that ignores systemic discrimination and the fact of inequality among other things. A more robust notion of fairness would take such factors into account.

There's a child drowning in a lake. Nearby is a firefighter who is a former Olympic swimmer and several others who have never learned to swim. Do all of these people have the same moral obligation to save the child from drowning. Given your extreme right-libertarian views, you will probably argue that no one has any such moral obligation and it is the child's individual responsibility to lift themselves from the water by their own bootstraps. However, many ethicists argue that there is a moral duty to help someone in distress if you have the ability to do so, an ethical position I agree with.

Is it fair to have an equal expectation of all of the bystanders to help, or should that expectation depend upon the individual capacities of the people present. It seems more reasonable to expect the proficient swimmer to help the child than the others who cannot swim. The general point here is that individual traits, properties, and capacities, etc... vary among individuals and our moral obligations ought to take such variables into account... ethics based upon capacities. Variations of this ethical principle apply in many other domains, including how governments ought to treat marginalized groups. This is a radically different notion of fairness than a blind, deaf, and dumb, formulation based upon willful ignorance of such relevant facts.

 

[tabzer]

Do all of these people have the same moral obligation to save the child from drowning

They have the same moral obligation to attempt to save the child. Whether that's a positive or zero, it is besides the point I want to argue. Is a man who is the only person capable of saving earth, obliged to? You are inviting a lot of bureaucracy into the mix, and that is arguably the largest moral retardant that we currently experience as a global culture.


As for the claim, "That implies a naive notion of fairness that ignores systemic discrimination and the fact of inequality among other things," it has already been acknowledged how affirmative action is systemic discrimination and how reparations negatively affect people who have nothing to do with slavery. You can't hook this "fight racism with a subscription" and anticipate there ever to be an end. Incentivizing it with capital gives it wings.

 

[Foxi4]

That implies a naive notion of fairness that ignores systemic discrimination and the fact of inequality among other things. A more robust notion of fairness would take such factors into account.

There's a child drowning in a lake. Nearby is a firefighter who is a former Olympic swimmer and several others who have never learned to swim. Do all of these people have the same moral obligation to save the child from drowning. Given your extreme right-libertarian views, you will probably argue that no one has any such moral obligation and it is the child's individual responsibility to lift themselves from the water by their own bootstraps. However, many ethicists argue that there is a moral duty to help someone in distress if you have the ability to do so, an ethical position I agree with.

Is it fair to have an equal expectation of all of the bystanders to help, or should that expectation depend upon the individual capacities of the people present. It seems more reasonable to expect the proficient swimmer to help the child than the others who cannot swim. The general point here is that individual traits, properties, and capacities, etc... vary among individuals and our moral obligations ought to take such variables into account... ethics based upon capacities. Variations of this ethical principle apply in many other domains, including how governments ought to treat marginalized groups. This is a radically different notion of fairness than a blind, deaf, and dumb, formulation based upon willful ignorance of such relevant facts.

It’s always funny to have other people tell me what I think. “Equal under the law” really doesn’t require any mental gymnastics and hypothetical scenarios - it’s four words. Either we are equal under the law or we’re not for *insert reason here*. I understand that you *like* the reasons behind positive discrimination, but you still have to recognise it as discrimination in order to maintain logical consistency and not succumb to cognitive dissonance. You’re okay with certain kinds of discrimination and that’s fine so long as you’re willing to cop to that.

You can tell yourself whatever you want, the government was able to fund better social safety nets, and one salary could comfortably support a family of four. There's no denying that companies were better at acknowledging the human element of both the worker and customer back then.

You're fucking with me, right? Police kill over a thousand Americans a year, disproportionately black and latino, though hundreds of white people as well. They're the ones who unilaterally decide what is and isn't a crime, and if body cam footage doesn't support that, it gets lost. This is by no means anecdotal, but rather a pattern of corruption that reaches all the way to the top of police unions in America.

Gee, it's almost like running a country the right way is expensive. Yet every other first-world nation somehow gets by. It's not your money anyway, that whole euphemism drives me fucking nuts, like sports fans that pretend they're on the team. If you ever make your first billion, congratulations, you won the "game." I'm not going to feel sorry for you no matter how much is taken in taxes, because it's ultimately not gonna change your lifestyle in the slightest. And if we're just reaching parity with the rest of the world, you'd have nowhere to run.

Like I said, we’ve gone over police stats in the past, there’s no reason to go through the same spiels when the search function exists. The notion that “safety nets” in the 50’s were better than the ones present now is comical. It’s my money, always has been - the government has no money. In fact, the government’s in the hole, big time. It gets to spend a portion of my money that I contribute via taxation for, purportedly, my benefit.

Can we get back to the drag queens now? I genuinely don’t like having the same conversations twice, thrice or thirteen times. You know what I think about all this.

 

[DoomKratos]

Gladly:
"An Adult human person who identifies as the Female gender"
Do you see what this is, it's a definition, you keep saying people can't define what a woman is, well there it is whether you like it or not is a different matter, but it's still a definition.

1) Scientifically, it is pretty straightforward to define what a woman is. The fact that you come to this thread high and mighty using your own convenient definition which is a contradiction and a paradox doesn't make what you said true at all.

Words and the meaning of a word, or, the definitions attached to a word, as arbitrary as language may be in a pseudo-philosophical setting, were naturally created linguistically in order to consciously establish a universally accepted verbal understanding within a society, and its subgroups, based on that which is observable, or based on that which is an identifier for that which is observable.

Woman: An adult female human being.
And what is a Female?
Female: 1. An individual of the sex which conceives and brings forth young, or (in a wider sense) which has an ovary and produces ova. The male and female of each living thing. (Drayton)
2. (Science: botany) a plant which produces only that kind of reproductive organs which are capable of developing into fruit after impregnation or fertilization; a pistillate plant.
Origin: oe. Femel, femal, f. Femelle, fr. L. Femella, dim. Of femina woman. See feminine.
1. Belonging to the sex which conceives and gives birth to young, or (in a wider sense) which produces ova; not male. As patient as the female dove When that her golden couplets are disclosed. (Shak)
2. Belonging to an individual of the female sex; characteristic of woman; feminine; as, female tenderness. Female usurpation.’b8 (Milton) To the generous decision of a female mind, we owe the discovery of America.” (Belknap)
3. (Science: botany) Having pistils and no stamens; pistillate; or, in cryptogamous plants, capable of receiving fertilization.

It's pretty straight forward. Species are divided into male and female, and are given an identifier. For human beings, the male is a Man, the female is a Woman. For swans, the male is a cobb, the female is a pen. For pigs, the male is a boar or barrow, and the female is a glit or a sow, using unique identifiers to determine which one is capable of breeding or not, according to it's sex.

The reality is, a man can say he feels like a woman and want's to identify as a woman, but he will never be a woman. He can behave like a woman, but he will never be a woman. Genetically speaking, even with all the hormone therapy and sex changes a man can receive, he will never be identified as a woman if his remains were uncovered in the future. Vice versa applies to a woman that says she feels like a man and wants to identify as a man. She will never be a man. She can behave like a man, but he will never be a man. Genetically speaking, even with all the hormone therapy and sex changes a woman can receive, she will never be identified as a man if her remains were uncovered in the future.

What defines a woman is the fact that she is female, and what defines a female is the fact that she is a human being born with reproductive organs such as an ovary and produces ova; and as a rebuttal towards the fallacious "infertile woman argument," a woman is supposed to be born with healthy reproductive organs such as an ovary and produces ova, but a genetic mutation occurred during her development in her mother's pregnancy gestation period that permanently inhibits her fertility; or a genetic mutation occurred due to environmental circumstances that permanently inhibits her fertility; or a traumatic injury occurred that permanently inhibits her fertility,

That is what a woman is.

A transgender is a transgender and there is absolutely nothing wrong with being a transgender. It only becomes a problem when you begin to distort reality for the convenience of your emotion or someone else's emotion.

Trans: comes from Latin, and is attached to verb roots that refer to movement or carrying from one place to another; it means "across; through'."

You cannot claim to be a supporter of trans people, or you cannot claim to be a trans person while also trying to claim that they (if you're the supporter), or that you (if you are trans), are the sex that they or you are not born as. It defeats the purpose of being trans. They (if you're the supporter), or You (if you are trans), can be respected like the sex that they or you are not born with, but they or you can never be identified as the sex that they or you are not born with. It's logical and simple. It is irrational to argue against that.

And I'll use your fallacious closing argument to end part one:

well there it is whether you like it or not is a different matter, but it's still a definition.

2)

I didn't see anyone here defending pedophilia, unless you're trying to say that the rights of trans people is pedophilia or that the freedom of people to break gender stereotypes is sexual.

Defending the current movement of "Trans rights" and "Trans Introduction" to children that are at an Elementary School level itself is grooming and a pre-cursor to the acceptance of pedophilia because you are focused primarily on indoctrinating children to learn about sex from an adult's understanding. Also, don't use the fallacious "Hollywood Media" argument; Yes, Cardi B is bad. Rap Music, Rock and Roll,, it's all sex and drugs. It's all bad. Yet, stating the "Pop Culture" culture argument to justify grooming is despicable. As if hyper scaling one wrong minuscules the crime of sexualizing children via Trans Rights movement.
Don't feign ignorance. Show me one Trans Movement where the Trans doesn't talk to children about sex, or where the Trans don't dance provocatively in front of children. Eight times out of ten times, all the trans people do is talk about sex or dance provocatively highlighting sexual moves in front of children. Even the children books that defend LGBTQIA+ are all about sex. This whole indoctrination towards children is fixated on sex.

Got it, so because someone did something bad to children it should be illegal for trans people to exist and also for men to wear "feminine" clothing of any kind and also preventing women from wearing "masculine" clothing of any kind (unless you think they should be excluded from that for some reason). That's how laws like this will be used.

This is a fallacious straw man argument. You created strawman (different subject not relating the topic i'm discussing) and you attacked that strawmen with your argument and claimed a false sense of victory to captivate the audience who are susceptible and gullible to this tactic.

I never mentioned that trans people, or any gay person for that matter, cannot wear feminine and or masculine clothes.I never wrote that at all. I am talking about Transgenders putting on shows in front of children displaying lingerie, undergarments, like bra and underwear, or thongs, while dancing provocativly, highlighting sexual moves--- or to indoctrinate by reading sexual books in the guise of "Trans Rights."

This is you defending grooming which is a pre-cursor to pedophilia, and as a result of your community enabling these atrocious behaviors, an offshoot of the LGBTQIA+ community has already begun to create the Minor Attracted Persons (MAPs) movement.

Disgusting.
By the way..

"feminine" clothing of any kind and also preventing women from wearing "masculine"

Define Feminine and define Masculine... because based on your stripping of the definition of woman, and your ambitions to destroy Woman's Rights, I am curious to know what is feminine and what is masculine? From an observable, linguistic, and scientific perspective of course.

Please and Thank You.

 

[RetroGen]

It’s always funny to have other people tell me what I think. “Equal under the law” really doesn’t require any mental gymnastics and hypothetical scenarios - it’s four words. Either we are equal under the law or we’re not for *insert reason here*. I understand that you *like* the reasons behind positive discrimination, but you still have to recognise it as discrimination in order to maintain logical consistency and not succumb to cognitive dissonance. You’re okay with certain kinds of discrimination and that’s fine so long as you’re willing to cop to that.

Actually, I've been pointing out flaws in the axioms underlying your political views, in this case a simplistic, blind, deaf, and dumb notion of fairness and/or equality. If one's axioms are incorrect, it is likely that everything that follows from them is similarly flawed reasoning. Sure, I could also employ axioms imagining some hypothetical idealized right-libertarian world full of naive assumptions about reality, but I'd rather formulate an ethical and political philosophy based upon the acceptance of the fact that diversity and inequality exist in the real world in myriad forms. Put another way, I want my views to be reasoned based upon reality, not some right-libertarian fantasy scenario. However, if a right-libertarian fantasy world ever does exist (and people are equivalent to fungible widgets), I'm sure it will work perfectly, all according to impeccable logic.

 

[KingVamp]

I don’t know where you’re getting the idea that fiscal conservatives are only caring about corporations - corporations are having it nice and cozy under Democrat rule, I assure you.

There is at least some and growing resistance to cutting services that people need, whereas the other side does close to nothing but make it harder on poor people, while making things easier for the people that are already rich, even if it means that it will actually cost the country more in the long run. You had a good chuck of Republicans willing to crash the whole economy.

 

[RetroGen]

Autobiographical video about a young transgender man. The struggles and barriers this individual has faced are clearly not typical or equal to the average person his age. I feel it is important that people spend a little time learning about the reality of what it is like to be transgender in a dominantly cis-hetero world rather than simply react to clickbait news bites and rightwing anti-trans propaganda. People tend to be afraid of things they don't understand. Listen to the real life experiences of transgender people who just want to live a normal life like everyone else. Empathy can bring understanding.

 

[Foxi4]

There is at least some and growing resistance to cutting services that people need, whereas the other side does close to nothing but make it harder on poor people, while making things easier for the people that are already rich, even if it means that it will actually cost the country more in the long run. You had a good chuck of Republicans willing to crash the whole economy.

The word you’re looking for is “leverage”. I’m pretty good at Scrabble.

Actually, I've been pointing out flaws in the axioms underlying your political views, in this case a simplistic, blind, deaf, and dumb notion of fairness and/or equality. If one's axioms are incorrect, it is likely that everything that follows from them is similarly flawed reasoning. Sure, I could also employ axioms imagining some hypothetical idealized right-libertarian world full of naive assumptions about reality, but I'd rather formulate an ethical and political philosophy based upon the acceptance of the fact that diversity and inequality exist in the real world in myriad forms. Put another way, I want my views to be reasoned based upon reality, not some right-libertarian fantasy scenario. However, if a right-libertarian fantasy world ever does exist (and people are equivalent to fungible widgets), I'm sure it will work perfectly, all according to impeccable logic.

If a “flaw” can be interpreted as a positive quality then it’s not a very good argument. You haven’t indicated any “flaws” in any axioms - you’ve indicated that they’re distasteful to you. If you have to explain why your notion of equality somehow encompasses instances of inequality and you feel compelled to justify that, that’s an indication that deep down you know you’re in the wrong, even if for the right reasons in your estimation.

A libertarian utopia doesn’t exist - neither does a socialist utopia, any other kind for that matter. There are certain ideals you strive to achieve, but never actually reach. It’s foundational to every ideology on the planet. Humans are flawed. By proxy, the execution of our goals is flawed in equal measure. To you, it is inherently ethical to take from those who have means and give to those who do not - you consider it a moral imperative to maximise human well-being by redistributing our resources. To me that’s inherently immoral and no different than theft, since charity at the point of a gun is no different than highway robbery. It’s a difference of perspective. Pretending that there’s some sort of universal code of morality that is inherently good, and not adhering to it is inherently evil, is a fruitless effort rooted in dogmatic thinking. It’s quasi-religious, except in the case of progressives they’ve replaced god with the government.

That’s neither here nor there though - I certainly don’t feel “owned” by anything you’ve said and the things I say are firmly rooted in reality, just as much as your ideas are. We just have different ideas on how things should run.

 

[pustal]

1) Scientifically, it is pretty straightforward to define what a woman is. The fact that you come to this thread high and mighty using your own convenient definition which is a contradiction and a paradox doesn't make what you said true at all.

We're talking about gender, not sex. And if there is science that restricts gender definition to whatever you believe it to be, present your academic sources.

Words and the meaning of a word, or, the definitions attached to a word, as arbitrary as language may be in a pseudo-philosophical setting, were naturally created linguistically in order to consciously establish a universally accepted verbal understanding within a society, and its subgroups, based on that which is observable, or based on that which is an identifier for that which is observable.

Woman: An adult female human being.
And what is a Female?
Female: 1. An individual of the sex which conceives and brings forth young, or (in a wider sense) which has an ovary and produces ova. The male and female of each living thing. (Drayton)
2. (Science: botany) a plant which produces only that kind of reproductive organs which are capable of developing into fruit after impregnation or fertilization; a pistillate plant.
Origin: oe. Femel, femal, f. Femelle, fr. L. Femella, dim. Of femina woman. See feminine.
1. Belonging to the sex which conceives and gives birth to young, or (in a wider sense) which produces ova; not male. As patient as the female dove When that her golden couplets are disclosed. (Shak)
2. Belonging to an individual of the female sex; characteristic of woman; feminine; as, female tenderness. Female usurpation.’b8 (Milton) To the generous decision of a female mind, we owe the discovery of America.” (Belknap)
3. (Science: botany) Having pistils and no stamens; pistillate; or, in cryptogamous plants, capable of receiving fertilization.

https://www.who.int/health-topics/gender

2)


Defending the current movement of "Trans rights" and "Trans Introduction" to children that are at an Elementary School level itself is grooming and a pre-cursor to the acceptance of pedophilia because you are focused primarily on indoctrinating children to learn about sex from an adult's understanding.

You made no logical connection, there is no data to backup your claim.
Also trans rights have nothing to do with sex, you're the one here confusing identity with sexuality.
Also, sexual education, although unrelated, is a weapon against sexual abuse: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6283686/

Has nothing to to with grooming and you're doing nothing more than weaponizing children to scapegoat a segment of society.


And that is in fact what it is here

Disgusting.

 

[Doran754]

It's delusional to believe that you are the sex you weren't born. I don't care how many people come along and try to pressure me into believing otherwise. I'm not budging. Although, I do wonder why you see it everywhere you go? Trannsexuals are a minority, a major minority, yet they're getting all this attention. Makes you wonder what the Liberals are up to.

Sex and gender is the same thing. You're right, it does make me wonder. It's almost like there's an agenda. 145 days of a calendar year all for the minority group being persecuted, ignore the fact every major news organisation and sports, government agency and shops promote it daily.

Post automatically merged: Jun 8, 2023

News Flash: Dorian754 disagrees with something so therefore it must not be true all because he doesn't like it. In reality this is not an opinion it is backed by scientific fact, though I bet you don't believe in science either, if that's the case we're done here, I don't do discussions with Flat Earthers or Evangelicalists, as they are not conducive to a logical explanation and are based purely on opinion and fantasy.

Everybody in human history has agreed with me for the last 50,000 years, bar the last 10. It's almost like there's a massive sector based entirely on profit who focuses on young people with mental disorders so they can profit from a lifetime of them needing surgery, backed up by multiple organisations who'll all benefit.

Actually, on second thought, maybe you're right. Anyone can be a woman.

 

[pustal]

Everybody in human history has agreed with me for the last 50,000 years, bar the last 10.

Hum no, absolutely not.

 

[Doran754]

Hum no, absolutely not.

Wikipedia, the bastion of unbiased information.

 

[pustal]

Wikipedia, the bastion of unbiased information.

The articles are properly backed by sources, unlike you.

And what what's the point of your screenshot compilation? It's correct.

 

[Doran754]

The articles are properly backed by sources, unlike you.

And what what's the point of your screenshot compilation? It's correct.

Andrew tate doesn't need a source to be a woman, he just needs to state he is one remember. Bigot.

 

[pustal]

Andrew tate doesn't need a source to be a woman, he just needs to state he is one remember. Bigot.

If he identifies as woman, sure. It wouldn't even surprise me if he was closeted.

Please elaborate on your mental gymnastics to call me a bigot, though.

 

[KingVamp]

I like how these people are acting like non-LGBT people can't do questionable things.

 

[Foxi4]

Looks like the room is getting a little heated as soon as we get back to the meat of the issue. I’ll take this moment to remind everyone to be respectful to one another and refrain from using any invectives, accusations of mental illness or other somesuch nonsense. You can discuss things and agree to disagree, just because someone has a different point of view doesn’t mean they’re satan incarnate (except @The Catboy ) - if you can’t abide by that, perhaps this section isn’t for you. It’s a *very low bar* for entry, so none of you should have any issues with this.

 

[The Catboy]

satan incarnate (except @The Catboy )

Spoilers